First Continental Congress related to the Advisory Council and our community meetings

I think that the First Continental Congress could teach us that although we come from a number of different feeder schools and have a different number of perspectives, we can still come together in meetings, such as community meetings, Advisory Council, and things of that nature, in order to push for a greater common cause. It is kind of like the saying, “United we stand, divided we fall,” which originated in the fourth verse of a 1768 patriotic ballad, The Liberty Song, by John Dickinson. (http://americanhistory.si.edu/1942/campaign/campaign24.html) I truly think that if a group of divers people come together with a common goal at hand, they hold a vast amount of possibilities, and it would be more then likely in their favor, especially when it comes to change. I know that in my experience, that previous thought has been a reality. When I was about eleven or twelve, I was involved in this organization called ICL, the Institute for Community Leadership. In this organization, the common cause was to fight for non-violence; we reiterated this in both our workshops and in numerous speaking events. Our organization was made of students and administrators ranging in age from eleven years old to those in their late fifties. We came from many different schools, cities, and had different ethnicities and backgrounds. But this always worked out to our advantage because we were able to captivate and persuade people and a variety of different levels. More then not, our audience was able to connect with us. Although many people might see diversity as a downfall, I see it as a mere advantage, a strengthening feature. The reason being that if a large diversed number of people are in favor of a particular cause, say one of the constitutions in place at PSEC, it becomes a stronger argument because there will be a large number of reasons and back up for the decision. If everyone were the same, it would take out the complexity of the issue, and therefore create the possibility of lacking depth and enough support.


To my knowledge, I feel that the governing process by which we follow at PSEC is a valid process and as it stands, is good the way it is, for right now. First off, I am for a democracy and equality. I feel that it is important for matters to be fair and everyone hold a say in what happens and the rules by which they must follow. This is something that I have always thought to be important. I personally, like most people when they are young, used to always say, “That’s not fair” and I would always receive the response, “life isn’t fair. Get over it.” This I feel does not need to be true. I think that everyone should be allowed the same things as everyone else, as long as they abide by the rules, clearly a murder shouldn’t be allowed the same rights as a hero of the community, for example. I also find it wonderful how our Advisory Council consists of four juniors, four seniors, and four members of the faculty. This creates as much of an equality as possible, except I feel it would be better if of each of the four, two members of each category be girls and two boys, unless an exception has to be made due to the people interested because it is better to have the equality thrown off a little, then to force someone into being on Advisory Council and they aren’t even committed or they doesn’t really care about what happens to PSEC as a community. Although I don’t know much on the current governing process we hold at PSEC, what I know as of now seems to be pretty reasonable.


I, just like every student at PSEC, can get involved and make an impact on the process and structure of PSEC as a community. One way in which I could do this would be to become a part of the Advisory Council. Another way I could involve myself is by making a proposal for things that I feel need to be change and bring it up to the community in one of our community meetings. I could also help implement the changes, if approved. One thing that is nice about the constitution is that we are able to make changes if need and it is not something looked down upon, but instead is considered a good thing because it allows the possibility for change and gives up the chance to see what does or doesn’t work out for the better. Without this opportunity, we might continue to make preventable situations and nothing could be done, in terms of growth and development of PSECs process and structure.


Because the process allows us, as a community, to get involved, I know that this can be considered a challenge. I also understand that this challenge may be ignored or not engaged due to laziness, fear, or simply not caring about the matters. This becomes a challenge because it isn’t required of anyone to step up and make changes, unless they commit to the Advisory Council, or something of that nature and it is their duty. It may also be a challenge to come up with a reasonable response or possible action to take in order to make the changes. Another place where this becomes a challenge is when people are too afraid to speak up because they are scared of being turned down or someone might put them down for their beliefs. Because we have a democracy, it is less likely, because everyone is allowed a say, making it more unlikely for someone to put you down for your idea and more likely that someone else may side with you on the issue, maybe not complete, but to a substantial point. If those people aren’t willing to step up and get involved, year after year, PSEC would not see any significant changes, and will be stuck in a certain state, by which they would have reoccurring difficulties. I do feel that it is essential for members of the community to get involved in these issues that make an impact on them and push for a change, to not only benefit themselves, but those who come after them and the members of their cohort.